Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

PuceBaboon (469044) writes "Earlier today (Thursday), police in Kawasaki, Japan, arrested a man for violation of the firearms control law. He was apparently in possession of five, 3D-printed handguns, two of which were reportedly capable of firing normal rounds (although no actual bullets were found). The suspect was arrested after releasing video of the guns online. Japan has very strict gun control laws and, whether or not the suspect actually appeared in the alleged video, he may just have signed himself up for some serious porridge."

This porridge, while thick and creamy, may also in fact come with maple syrup and fresh berries or should he plead guilty, a knob of butter and a dash of salt as would be the law in japan as it applies to sentencing and conviction within the bounds of the criminal porridge system. The whole grain oats, enriched generously with folate and iron, would serve to deter even the most wanton of breakfast criminal.

Yet Japan, the country mentioned in the article, has a much higher suicide rate than the United States despite their strict gun control policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
And no, I'm not in the NRA.

Easy access to guns is a factor in suicide rates (largely because suicide attempts made with guns typically work, while there are a lot of ineffective attempts by non-firearm users). In terms of attempt rate, though, I don't think that there's much correlation of any sort(unless you buy the theory that some of the stupider acts of violence, with extraordinarily high risks and minimal rewards, are basically suicide for violent people, the 'suicide by cop' and such).

Sorry, I didn't make that clear: given a constant attempt rate, the firearm supply will strongly affect the resulting suicide rate. Guns are very good at what they are designed to do, while many of the DIY methods that people try are just plain ineffective, slow enough to permit medical response, or otherwise defective.

A sufficiently large difference in attempt rate can (and in this case does) swamp the effects of greater success rates; but people with easy access to explicitly lethal instruments succeed

And don't forget that when Australia banned and confiscated most guns, suicide by firearm did vanish overnight. But the overall suicide rates did not change from the long term trends. (actually they spiked the two years after the ban but if you remove those two years as outliers, the rate remained on the same gradual downward trend it had been on for years.) If easy access to guns was really a factor then the overall suicide rate would have dropped significantly as well, but it didn't. "Suicidal intent

Yet Japan, the country mentioned in the article, has a much higher suicide rate than the United States despite their strict gun control policies

And there are many reasons for that, culturally.

First, educational systems in Asia tend to be brutal. Basically, at the end of high school, you take an exam. That exam determines your future. If you score well, you can go to university (overseas! scholarships! fully paid!) and study what you want and get a job doing what you want.

Interesting to note that India has one of the largest populations and the lowest rates of gun violence in the world. It's not like India is violence free, though. We hear all the time about brutal gang rapes of women. And those are only the ones that get reported internationally because they are committed against foreign tourists. So this would suggest that a low rate of gun violence does not imply a safer society, and that there is a cultural influence to violence as a whole.

You mean to tell me, in a country where guns are illegal, the number of deaths resulting from guns is lower? I'm shocked!

all kidding aside, lets have some real numbers:The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world... by a HUGE margin:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

We have twice as many guns per person as almost every other country on earth.If Guns = murder, then we should also have the highest murder rate right?

We don't:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]We actually have a fairly low murder rate compared to most of the world depending on how you judge it. In comparison to our closest neighbor Canada we're a tad higher... but hey, they're Canadians, the only disputes they get in are over the shape on their bacon.

If you're going to have an argument, clouding it with made-up data just makes people not listen to you. The problem with the gun control crowd is their goal is an unconstitutional outright ban and they make no attempt to hide that. Every gun control law isn't passed to limit gun deaths, they're passed in an attempt to ban guns. If the NRA could trust the gun control advocates, I think they'd be a little more co-operative. Increased background checks and required safety classes I think everyone could agree on. But when the anti-gun-nuts then use those background checks to delay and prevent people who are legally allowed to carry a weapon, those people get pissed and just flat out oppose any regulation. The gun regulation problems in this country are just as much the fault of those trying to pass the laws as they are the ones that oppose them.

If the "toy guns" are perfectly able to shoot one effective bullet (even while disintegrating themselves after that), then I'm not considering them toy guns. By the way, I think a 3D plastic gun was able to shoot 8 bullets before being too damaged to function (a 3D plastic rifle fired 14 rounds) And where would you draw the line between toy guns and "real" guns? 3D printed in plastic = toy. 3D printed in plastic with one metal part? With two metal parts? With multiple metal parts? Handm

The first is a comma separating cumulative modifiers. E.g. a big, strong, intelligent mammalFive is not a modifier but a determiner, so I would not use a comma there myself. This author just seems to have extended the rule.

The second is just setting off a non-restrictive clause. E.g. the baker, whose cakes I've always enjoyed, came to see me

Why should the first one be wrong?He simply used _correctly_ 2 commas where more eloquent writers had perhaps used dashes: He was apparently in possession of five -- 3D-printed handguns -- two of which were... The only thing that makes his wording a bit inconvenient is that the topic itself is about "3D printed guns", so repeating it using dashes sounds a bit silly.

require the people carrying a gun to also carry liability insurance and carry proof of that insurance with them anytime they are carrying their gun? I hope so, but probably not.

I think that if we are required to carry liability insurance and proof thereof for something as mundane as driving a car we should require the same for carrying something that is designed specifically to kill other people.

I think the "free market" could solve the gun problem in the US in a hurry. Insurers would simply make it so ex

require the people carrying a gun to also carry liability insurance and carry proof of that insurance with them anytime they are carrying their gun? I hope so, but probably not.

I think that if we are required to carry liability insurance and proof thereof for something as mundane as driving a car we should require the same for carrying something that is designed specifically to kill other people.

Several states do not have compulsory auto insurance, why should states mandate any insurance?

There are multiple facets to the inanity of the "CCW should require liability insurance". One of the biggest is that insurance doesn't cover an intentional act [insurancec...foryou.com], it covers accidents and similar unforeseen occurrences. No insurance company would underwrite a policy covering "any and all" possible adverse incidents involving carrying a handgun, only unforeseen occurrences.

I think the "free market" could solve the gun problem in the US in a hurry. Insurers would simply make it so expensive to carry a gun that people would have to give up on the idea.

I realize / hope that you're joking, but to be abundantly clear: the US Government doesn't sell guns to individuals. Not during the Fast & Furious operation or ever. They do sell guns to states sometimes - e.g. Iran / Contra.

I think the 'woosh' is yours. Parent is pointing out that there are states where it's ridiculously easy to buy guns, and those guns can easily be transported to areas where gun ownership is more restricted. However, the same is not true of cocaine, which can't easily be bought legally.

No, parent is asking a silly question, that ignores grandparent's point - cocaine is completely illegal in the US, and there are no legal sources of it, yet a lot of people still manage to get their hands on the substance, thus negating the assumption that gun crime rates in states that ban firearms is a direct result of being adjacent to states that do not.

Besides if it gets too hard to buy or import them, you could always build them.

A nice 1911 copy could probably be made in a fairly small shop these days with a PC and some decent metal working machines. I am not a gun smith but if they could make these in 1911 it doesn't seem like much of a tech barrier to just clone them now.

Besides if it gets too hard to buy or import them, you could always build them.

A nice 1911 copy could probably be made in a fairly small shop these days with a PC and some decent metal working machines. I am not a gun smith but if they could make these in 1911 it doesn't seem like much of a tech barrier to just clone them now.

Ever been to Tokyo? Greater Tokyo had almost 35 million people packedon the edge of a stamp and... there is essentially no violent crime. Everythinglooks clean, new, and well-kept. Also great and safe public transportation!Japanese are so polite and nice...

There is plenty of violent crime in Japan. The difference between their violent crime and violent crime in the United States is that Japan's guns laws are very highly restrictive. I can still remember reading an interview a gaming website did with a mid-level yakuza, who they had play Yakuza 4. He remarked that none of the actual yakuza use guns, because the cops there will arrest on sight if they see someone carrying one. Instead, they tend to snatch people off the streets and use the $5 wrench approach.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.

While I'm sure the yakuza don't account for 100% of violent crime there, I'd be willing to bet they account for quite a bit.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the violent crime rate in Japan, especially by organized crime, is under-reported. One of the main slang terms for the yakuza translates to "the office", a remark on how big of an institution organized crime is in the country, to the point where it's almost like a business.

Ah yes, country X doing better than USA as measured by statistic Y ? Of course the statistic must be false!
USA! USA! USA!

If we got rid of all guns in America, it's reasonable to assume the violent crime rate overall would go down to some degree. How much is debatable because some of the violent crimes committed with guns now would still be committed just with a different instrument. But it would go down, that seems fair.

But, what of the people who now do not have a gun to defend themselves? Quite a few defensive gun uses occur daily in America... exactly how many is difficult to know because they're frequently not reported (because simply pulling out a gun will sometimes end a violent confrontation and people tend not to report those cases). I wouldn't go so far as to say the number of people saved by there not being a gun involved is equal to the number saved by there BEING a gun involved, but clearly SOME number cancel out. Here's the big question: is a life saved because we got rid of guns somehow more valuable than one saved because we didn't? Do you want to tell the family of a gun who was killed because he wasn't allowed to have a gun anymore that it's okay because someone else was saved due to guns being removed from society? I'd bet not.

So, that's a cost. Whether the benefits outweigh that cost is what's debatable. A lot of people take the Spock approach: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. It's a great-sounding platitude, but when it gets down to actual people it doesn't stand up so well. See my above scenario.

A potentially MUCH bigger cost is the deterrent effect guns have against a corrupt government. We can argue all day and night about without an armed American population could overthrow a corrupt government with the might of the military on its side, but what CAN'T be debated is that if you remove guns from society you've given up just about the ONLY thing that gives us ANY chance whatsoever. I mean, if you believe the military would crush us WITH guns than you can't logically think it wouldn't be MUCH worse it we didn't have them!

So, that's a (potential) cost too... but that one is very important because the potential cost is MASSIVE. Is there really ANY benefit worth that cost? I for one argue no. It's exceedingly tragic any time someone dies... whether a gun is involved or not hardly matters... a suicide is a suicide, gun or not. A homicide is a homicide, gun or not. The only one that's a little different is accidental shootings because it's not like someone is going to accidentally kill you as easily with a baseball bat. But, statistically-speaking, accidental shootings in America isn't, to put it coldly, all that significant a number. It's certainly a much smaller number than car accidents, or even pool drownings year by year. Even if every last one of them is unarguably tragic, logically, the cost of saving those lives by getting rid of guns is too high, and that's even before we talk about the POTENTIAL costs.

If we got rid of all guns in America, it's reasonable to assume the violent crime rate overall would go down to some degree. How much is debatable because some of the violent crimes committed with guns now would still be committed just with a different instrument. But it would go down, that seems fair.

But, what of the people who now do not have a gun to defend themselves? Quite a few defensive gun uses occur daily in America... exactly how many is difficult to know because they're frequently not reported (because simply pulling out a gun will sometimes end a violent confrontation and people tend not to report those cases). I wouldn't go so far as to say the number of people saved by there not being a gun involved is equal to the number saved by there BEING a gun involved, but clearly SOME number cancel out.

If number of violent crimes (or just number of deaths caused by violent crimes) goes down (as you assume in first sentence), then DEFINITELY more people are saved than killed due to lack of gun.

Here's the big question: is a life saved because we got rid of guns somehow more valuable than one saved because we didn't? Do you want to tell the family of a gun who was killed because he wasn't allowed to have a gun anymore that it's okay because someone else was saved due to guns being removed from society? I'd bet not.

So, that's a cost. Whether the benefits outweigh that cost is what's debatable. A lot of people take the Spock approach: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. It's a great-sounding platitude, but when it gets down to actual people it doesn't stand up so well. See my above scenario.

This is not a platitude, but the only reasonable way of judging if given measure saves lives or not - assume that every life is equal and see if number of deaths is gets lower. Otherwise you could sink ANY idea as long as you prove that it caused even one death (no matter if it saved 100 000 or not). "If even one lif

Guns are illegal in Mexico and they have boarder control yet the bad guys get guns, cocaine is illegal in the US yet addicts still get cocaine, even prisons with very high security can't stop contraband from coming in. Unless you think the answer is tighter control of law abiding citizens then prisons have over prisoners there is no way to stop criminals from committing crimes.

If what you say is true, then criminals in every single country would be armed to the teeth with all the guns they want. As they are not, you're must be missing something quite important. You also must remember that when a criminal's potential victim has no gun, the criminal doesn't need a gun, and so won't want the increased cost and risk of actually having one. Cocaine and other drugs are public health issues, based on human psychology and physiology (substance abuse, etc.), so comparing the two simply

My point with the drug use was to highlight that stopping the flow of illegal products to a market where they are desired is impossible. Lets take Mexico for instance they have very restrictive gun laws and yet they have a much higher homicide rates 5x the US rate, the drug cartels are armed to the teeth, it's not the laws it's the culture. Switzerland has a 6x lower murder rate then the US and every adult is issued an assault rifle when they turn 18. Russia which has fairly strict gun ownership requirement

Switzerland has a 6x lower murder rate then the US and every adult is issued an assault rifle when they turn 18. That is not quite correct.They get issued a gun when they get drafted, and they keep it while in "reserves". Also they have to keep the gun securely in a locked locker.

Every adult in Switzerland has an assault rifle, but (almost) none of them have any bullets to go with it.You see, the assault riffle is issued when you finish the military training, and you're supposed to maintain it until the day when the country gets invaded and the government distributes the rounds through the populace.

As to your other point, you may not be able to stop the flow of illegal products, but you sure as hell can make it inconvenient enough that only people who really want it can get it, at a

Japan can implement gun control, whole countries other than Japan can implement gun control, even places that once put a gun into the hands of everyone who could carry one can implement gun control, even when the guns are printed. Gun control IS implementable. Here too...

The point of gun control is to reduce the number of (violent) crimes committed.

That being said, there is ample evidence that the most effective method to combat crime is to dump money into social programs: education, child-care, drug rehab, welfare, etc. Unfortunately, it seems that this solution is also an anathema for most Americans....which may somewhat explain the rates of viole

The point of gun control is to reduce the number of (violent) crimes committed.

A point that is, at least in America, an abject failure, judging from the violent crime rates in places like Chicago and Detroit. Obviously the issue is more one of culture than access to certain tools.

Guns aren't illegal in Chicago. You just can't buy a gun in Chicago thanks to scaremongering about Chicago's crime rate* and the predictable response from voters: to be scared into ceding some rights to politicians.

* There are pretty rough areas, yes, just like any major city in the US. And yes, the number of murders is higher than zero, which is bad but to be expected. And yes, the total number of people murdered by guns seems shockingly high until you adjust for population, at which point it looks

Chicago is a slightly curious case: city-wide, it has been getting safer, more slowly than some would like; but steadily, for some years. However, some of the parts that were always pretty nasty have actually been getting worse, they just aren't large enough or worse enough to drag down the citywide average.

The nicer bits were never as rough as 'Chicago's image suggested, and they've been improving. The rougher areas, though, earned the nickname 'Chiraq' honestly and messily.

Dystopian society in not-so-distant future where the oppressive government has passed such strict gun control and anti-gay laws that the noble resistance has resorted to bright, neon-colored 3D-printed weapons to fight the tyrannical regime, simultaneously demonstrating their right to bear arms and to choose their sexual orientation.

Or perhaps it is because they have an entirely different culture? One where violence had a severe cost just two generations ago, just about the same time had all cultural celebration of violence stomped out by foreign influence, and at the same time their national defense was overseen by an entirely different country so there was no nationalistic need to push any type of propoganda for desiring a career relating to violence on its young men. Assuming you could snap your fingers and make all the guns go away in America, you still haven't solved the underlying problems of undertreatment of the mentally ill, mistreatment of the poor, and the prevailing attitude that I'm not responsible for my own actions.

My browser lost my original lengthy response. Short answer is my exposure to Japanese culture is through martial arts. What I'm drawing from is first hand accounts that after WWII there was pressure in the Japanese martial arts to expel martial traditions and training that weren't sport, exercise, or religious in nature. It is possible that I've over generalized those accounts. If you have information to expand my knowledge then I'd welcome it.

Officially, you're entirely correct, not just as it pertains to martial arts but regarding everything cultural; the official position and attitude of government, academia and media in Japan is that their "national mores" are flawless.

Unofficially, however, Japanese culture continues to celebrate many differente types of violence in blatant fashion... and this hypocritical state of affairs is perpetuated and encouraged by the status quo's refusal to acknowledge its existence...

By your own premise, once you "snap your fingers and make all the guns go away in America," then the people suffering from "problems of undertreatment of the mentally ill, mistreatment of the poor, and the prevailing attitude that I'm not responsible for my own actions" will not be able to shoot anyone. Thus the murder rate would go down (since you imply it is because of these problems, and not the availability of guns, that people shoot people).

However, we have no clue how much those problems are going to effect the percentage of those firearm murders being converted to murders with another weapon beyond difference in lethality stats. We also know that solving the major problems that contribute to all violence have other clear social benefits that are probably even more significant than the drop in murder rate. While we are bickering over whether you can trust me with a firearm or not, the social factors that lead to violence are only getting wo

Murder rates won't change anyone's mind. Those who are for gun control will think they are proof of their side while those who are against it will take them as precisely the reason to own a gun to protect oneself in a violent country.

He's simply stating that up until the point the crime was underway, the shooter was not acting illegally, so all the NRA hysterics about protecting "innocent gun owners" means absolutely nothing. Plus every single one of the guns used in these crimes was, at one point, legally sold to a responsible, legal gun owner. Obviously gun owners can't be trusted, as their guns fall into the hands of criminals. You can't have it both ways.

Mexico has a tight restriction on guns yet their murder rate is 23.7, Switzerland where every adult over 18 is issued a true assault rifle has a murder rate of 0.7. It is not the gun laws that cause problems it is the culture. Lets stop punishing the people that do the right thing based on delusions and the desire to control the population.

Exact. Current laws against guns only serve to prevent the population from react against attempts of aggression coming from the government itself or from the 1% overlords (the true government in some sense). Because no law will prevent criminals from having guns, as always.

So let's take a look at the things that you're saying that aren't true, first. Switzerland - Every adult MALE is issued an assault rifle, WHEN THEY GO INTO THE MILITIA, at the age of 18 - when they are trained to use them. If they want to keep them, however, they remove the autofire, so it's no longer a "true assault rifle", whatever you meant by that. If they want to actually CARRY the guns, they have to go through an extensive permitting process, where basically everyone who doesn't have a need to carry (people in the security field) get rejected. Oh, also, you know that "murder rate" might be correlated with "gun death rate", they're not the same. Right? You know that? I'm assuming you just used the murder rate because it makes your point much better than the actual GUN DEATH RATE - you know, the number that shows how many people are KILLED WITH GUNS. There, Mexico has about triple the rate of Switzerland. I know it's not as impressive as 30x the rate, but it is - you know - relevant.

Now, let's look at your interesting and - I'm sure - random and totally neutral choice of Mexico as a counterexample. I mean, you chose a failed state in the middle of a civil war with narcoterrorists - something that (one might think) would drive the gun death rate up. And, in fact, it does - Mexico's gun death rate is about 20x what it was in 2001. So it seems what you've proved - and I'm not saying that this isn't a relevant and important point - is that laws are not magic and we don't live in Hogwarts. Mexico passing restrictive gun laws does not magically make guns vanish. I look forward to reading your thesis on this brilliant insight.

I'm going to pick out some TOTALLY RANDOM AND NEUTRAL countries of my own. Israel and Japan. Both countries with INCREDIBLY restrictive gun laws, so based on what we've learned from you, they'll obviously have ridiculously high gun death rates. Hmm... looking at Wikipedia, Israel is about half of the Swiss Gun Utopia, and Japan has about 2% of the gun deaths of Switzerland. Jesus, who would have thought MY unbiased, random and neutral countries would make the exact opposite point of YOUR unbiased, random and neutral countries? Except, you know, relevant. And without the circumstances that make Mexico a terrible example. And handsomer.

So I get that Slashdot has always had a weird subculture of gun nuts - but you can be pro-gun without being a moron. Let go of the ridiculous dogma and look at the ACTUAL FACTS that support your point. I think there's a special place in hell for people who make an argument so badly [you], it actually turns someone who supports the cause that they're espousing against them [that's me.]

You seem to be missing my point, it's simply that you can not just look at gun laws and legal gun ownership and say tougher gun laws make people safer. As to why I used homicide rates instead of gun death rates which include suicide which invalidates many of you claims. Take your example of Israel they have tougher gun laws then Canada but nearly 2x the gun homicide rate but almost half the gun death rate. Also many countries do not track gun death rates so places like Russia with 2/3 of nonmilitary guns being illegal and having higher over twice the homicide rate as the US while having much stricter gun laws sure paints a compelling picture.

So let's take a look at the things that you're saying that aren't true, first. Switzerland - Every adult MALE is issued an assault rifle, WHEN THEY GO INTO THE MILITIA, at the age of 18 - when they are trained to use them. If they want to keep them, however, they remove the autofire, so it's no longer a "true assault rifle", whatever you meant by that. If they want to actually CARRY the guns, they have to go through an extensive permitting process, where basically everyone who doesn't have a need to carry (people in the security field) get rejected

So, then, you agree with OP's premise that the issue isn't availability of firearms, but rather is a cultural one.

Except you can't legally buy ammunition for it and store at home. And yes, the culture is different - no-one here is walking/driving around with their rifle for "self protection". I would think there are some restrictions on who gets these rifles - i.e. background checks. And finally, the amount of households with guns are roughly half of in the USA.

Mexico has a tight restriction on guns yet their murder rate is 23.7, Switzerland where every adult over 18 is issued a true assault rifle has a murder rate of 0.7. It is not the gun laws that cause problems it is the culture.

Well, you can make a gun with just a metal pipe of the correct diameter, some reinforcement and something as firing pin, even simpler and cheaper than a 3D printed thing. But do not expect intelligence from the politicians.